Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the admission of the Section 7 application against the corporate guarantor could be interfered with on the grounds that the recovery certificate was under challenge, the review proceedings were pending, and the corporate debtor had only one asset.
Analysis: The corporate debtor had stood as guarantor for the financial facilities granted to the principal borrower, and a recovery certificate had already been issued after adjudication of the creditor's claim. The subsequent invocation of the corporate guarantee and filing of the Section 7 application were based on the continuing non-payment of the dues. A recovery certificate or money decree gives rise to a fresh cause of action for proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The pendency of a review before the Debt Recovery Tribunal did not dilute the effect of the recovery certificate for the purpose of insolvency admission. The argument that the corporate debtor had only one asset and that CIRP would not be fruitful did not furnish a ground to set aside an otherwise valid admission order once debt and default were established.
Conclusion: The challenge to the admission of the Section 7 application failed, and the order admitting insolvency proceedings against the corporate guarantor was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A final recovery certificate or money decree constitutes a fresh cause of action for initiating proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the pendency of collateral review proceedings or the alleged inadequacy of assets does not, by itself, defeat admission once debt and default are proved.